Romney to donors: Obama won because of “gifts” he gave to his base

posted at 9:43 pm on November 14, 2012 by Allahpundit

He told Hannity in early October that his “47 percent” comments were “completely wrong” but he doesn’t sound convinced of that here. Not exactly makers-versus-takers, but close:

In a conference call on Wednesday afternoon with his national finance committee, Mr. Romney said that the president had followed the “old playbook” of wooing specific interest groups — “especially the African-American community, the Hispanic community and young people,” Mr. Romney explained — with targeted gifts and initiatives.

“In each case they were very generous in what they gave to those groups,” Mr. Romney said.

“With regards to the young people, for instance, a forgiveness of college loan interest, was a big gift,” he said. “Free contraceptives were very big with young college-aged women. And then, finally, Obamacare also made a difference for them, because as you know, anybody now 26 years of age and younger was now going to be part of their parents’ plan, and that was a big gift to young people. They turned out in large numbers, a larger share in this election even than in 2008.”

The president’s health care plan, he added, was also a useful tool in mobilizing African-American and Hispanic voters.

He went on to mention Obama’s decision to unilaterally impose a de facto DREAM safe harbor for young illegals. And don’t forget O’s “evolution” on gay marriage, which coincidentally came right around the time his campaign was shifting away from trying to win independents and towards maximizing turnout among his base, i.e. young voters. The question, though, isn’t whether O is guilty of “clientelism,” to borrow Jay Cost’s phrase, it’s whether clientelism was decisive. What say you, Bobby Jindal?

Asked about Romney’s comments at a meeting of the Republican Governors Association at the Encore Hotel here in Las Vegas, Jindal did not hold back. “That is absolutely wrong,” Jindal said. “Two points on that. One, we have got to stop dividing American voters. We need to go after 100 percent of the votes, not 53 percent — we need to go after every single vote. And second, we need to continue to show that our policies help every voter out there achieve the American dream, which is to be in the middle class, which is to be able to give their children the opportunity to get a great education, which is for their children to have even better-paying jobs than their parents.”

“So I absolutely reject that notion, that description,” Jindal continued. I think it’s absolutely wrong. I don’t think that represents where we are as a party and where we’re going as a party. And that has got to be one of the most fundamental takeaways from this election. If we’re going to continue to be a competitive party and win elections on the national stage and continue to fight for our conservative principles, we need two messages to get out loudly and clearly. One, we are fighting for 100 percent of the votes, and secondly, our policies benefit every American who wants to pursue the American dream, period. No exceptions.”

That’s the sound of a man who’s running in 2016 and who has a better ear than Mitt Romney for how to talk to middle-class voters. If you buy the makers-versus-takers clientelism explanation, the GOP really might as well not field candidates in national elections going forward. In an age of fiscal crisis, it’ll never keep deficit hawks in the party fold by trying to out-“gift” Democrats; either the party will fracture or the crisis will hit and there won’t be any money for “gifts” anyway. There are three big reasons why Romney lost, I think, and none of them are about gifts. First, people just … didn’t like him that much. His favorable numbers improved towards the end after the Denver debate, but at best he was at rough parity with Obama. Not a good place to be with a vulnerable incumbent. More from Andrew Kohut at Pew:

Here is what the exit poll found. Mr. Romney’s personal image took a hard hit during the primary campaign and remained weak on election day. Just 47% of exit-poll respondents viewed him favorably, compared with 53% for Mr. Obama. Throughout the campaign, Mr. Romney’s favorable ratings were among the lowest recorded for a presidential candidate in the modern era. A persistent problem was doubt about his empathy with the average voter. By 53% to 43%, exit-poll respondents said that Mr. Obama was more in touch than Mr. Romney with people like themselves…

Mr. Romney was hurt by the perception—reinforced by Democratic attack ads and his secretly recorded comments about the “47%”—that he wasn’t for the average voter. With 55% of voters in the exit poll saying they think the U.S. economic system favors the wealthy, a large majority believed that Mr. Obama’s policies favor the middle class (44%) or the poor (31%). By contrast, 53% thought Mr. Romney’s policies would favor the rich.

Second, he got out-organized — badly. We’ve been over this already to some extent in wallowing over how ORCA failed and how Romney’s pollsters misread the electorate, but that’s the tip of the iceberg. Every day for the past week, some dispiriting new news story has appeared describing how Obama’s campaign team was doing something smarter or cheaper or more efficiently(!) than Mitt’s team. Here’s a NYT piece about Team O developing its own data-driven TV ratings system based on political leanings (“the Optimizer”) so that it could make more targeted ad buys. Here’s one about Team O hiring a “dream team” of behavioral scientists to help them figure out little things they could do that might encourage irregular voters to actually go down to the polling place. (Yes, it’s a little creepy.) Here’s one about Obama’s Super PAC using online media to maximize the number of views its videos got at a fraction of the cost Republican groups incurred to air their stuff on traditional media. I almost prefer to think that the election result was a demographic fait accompli because that hurts less than thinking Team Mitt and conservative groups might have left a winning margin out on the field simply because they didn’t know how to leverage it into turnout.

Third, I’m echoing other conservative writers in saying this — Ramesh Ponnuru, Ross Douthat, and Reihan Salam, for starters — but the GOP needs a more dynamic pitch to working families, a.k.a. the middle class. That’s what Jindal’s rejection of Romney is all about. “Class” talk tends to make righties nervous for good reason; coming from the left, it’s almost always a prelude to calls for redistribution. But it’s a useful way to define people whose lives are consumed with familiar problems of everyday life — work, pay, debt, tuition, gas prices. Address those basic concerns and they’ll pay attention. Besides, if the GOP is doomed under normal demographic metrics like race and gender, then it urgently needs to try to reshape how voters define themselves. Emphasize the middle class and you can compete across demographics that might otherwise view you coolly. This is all basic stuff, I know, but those numbers in Kohut’s piece means it’s not basic enough. More from Ponnuru:

The Republican story about how societies prosper — not just the Romney story — dwelt on the heroic entrepreneur stifled by taxes and regulations: an important story with which most people do not identify. The ordinary person does not see himself as a great innovator. He, or she, is trying to make a living and support or maybe start a family. A conservative reform of our health-care system and tax code, among other institutions, might help with these goals. About this person, however, Republicans have had little to say…

The perception that the Republican party serves the interests only of the rich underlies all the demographic weaknesses that get discussed in narrower terms. Hispanics do not vote for the Democrats solely because of immigration. Many of them are poor and lack health insurance, and they hear nothing from the Republicans but a lot from the Democrats about bettering their situation. Young people, too, are economically insecure, especially these days. If Republicans found a way to apply conservative principles in ways that offered tangible benefits to most voters and then talked about this agenda in those terms, they would improve their standing among all of these groups while also increasing their appeal to white working-class voters. For that matter, higher-income voters would prefer candidates who seem practical and solution-oriented. Better “communications skills,” that perennial item on the wish list of losing parties, will achieve little if the party does not have an appealing agenda to communicate.

He goes on to note that, for all his alleged unpopularity, Romney still ran ahead of lots of other Republicans down ballot in various states. Poor perceptions of the party can’t all be blamed on him, in other words, even if the rhetoric about “gifts” isn’t doing would-be nominees like Jindal any favors for 2016. But like I say: If that’s our working theory, that there’s no way back to power without buying off constituencies, then what exactly is the path back? How do you win an election again under those circumstances? Or have people just given up?

Update: Oh, and in case anyone’s inclined to beat up on Jindal for what he said, rest assured that someone will be running on a platform of middle-class outreach in 2016 and whoever does is bound to be competitive. Huckabee, who talks about this endlessly, might very well have been competitive this year with Romney if he’d run; Santorum ran partly on that message instead and got further than anyone thought. If anyone’s going to surf to the nomination four years from now by championing the middle-class, I’d much rather it be Jindal or Paul Ryan.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Comments

As I mentioned above is that the “gifts” that Obama is peddling tend to favor the upper middle class liberals.. the “White People” in stuff while people like:

1. Most middle class and lower middle class kids don’t get into Ivy schools. It’s ridiculously hard to get into a top tier school and involves lots of prep work and the right credentials. Most really smart “normal” middle class kids go to second tier schools. Outside of Jindal, none of the major 2016 contenders went to top tier schools. Gosh.. Rubio’s school profile is similar to Palin’s I think. Why not point out this dirty little secret? Why should middle class families be bailing out the upper middle class brats who went to Ivy schools and want their loans forgiven? Point out the unfairness of the racket and orient the whole thing toward the middle class. Heck, orient the whole thing toward getting highly skilled manufacturing guys.

2. Food stamps are being abused. If you are a 20 something single in NYC, I shouldn’t be paying for your organic diet.. m’kay. Starving artists should actually be starving. Hemingway wasn’t looking for gov’t handouts when he wrote A Moveable Feast.

3. Environmental tax credits… I don’t think you should get a tax credit for owning a Prius or a Volt. Not to mention the fact that the tax credit applies to only new vehicles. Ditto with putting up solar panels.

Just reorient the whole “war on the rich” and point out how much the rich get in gov’t handouts. Really hit the upper middle class “white people” in urban areas like where I live in Evanston. Point out that they are the ones getting ahead in the Obama economy and that the whole racket is meant to benefit them in terms of gov’t jobs, loans, grants, and tax credits. Separate the union guys from the vapid “White People” liberals and really make the “White People” the enemy.

It comes down to how do you beat Santa Claus and that is not encouraging.

The one bright point I can see is that Santa Claus might look like a drunk sex-offfeder by 2016 with the scandals and policy failures on the horizons. I don’t think people gave conservatives their vote in 1980. I think they gave up on liberlism and that is what it will take again IMHO. Once we get in like Reagan people will gravitate towards success and a better life and Santa Claus will look like Satan like in 1984.

One element of projecting conviction involves making the moral case for freedom and capitalism. Indeed, the unbreakable connection between freedom and capitalism should be stressed. Obama’s compulsive central planning is not just ineffective, it’s morally wrong. Solyndra was not just a “mistake,” it was an offense. The Democrats are very comfortable with presenting their policies in moral terms, to the point where even questioning the effects of these policies is often portrayed as sinful. Conservatives can fight back very effectively on those grounds without being shrill or offensive. When properly applied, passion is a force multiplier for logic, not the absence of reason.

8. We really need to stop making a fetish of “the middle class.” Romney did this quite often. Such class terminology is routinely abused by the Left to conceal its true intentions. Good policies are good for everyone, not just arbitrarily defined, protean sub-classes based on perceived income level. (Quite a few people who think they belong to the “middle class” really don’t, to the extent that such a broad classification has any objective meaning at all.)

The “middle class” obsession has made it easier for the Left to split Americans into warring groups, by obscuring the connections they have with one another. Republicans are not doing anyone of modest income any favors by allowing the very real connections between his life, and the fortunes of small-business owners and investors, to be obscured. It is both morally correct and economically sensible to remind voters that we’re all in this together. People like Barack Obama sometimes feel it necessary to pause their class-war tirades and insist that they don’t really hate “rich people.” Make them prove it, Republicans. While you’re at it, force them to precisely define “rich people.”

McCain faced Obama when Obama was shiny and new, the financial collapse that took place on a Republican watch, and McCain canceled his campaign to push through government bailouts.

Romney couldn’t outperform John McCain even with the economic advantage on Romney’s side, even with foreign policy scandals, even with corruption scandals, even with a US Ambassador killed weeks before the election, and disenchantment in Democratic ranks.

Sarah Palin may be a dipstick, but at least she ran a faster marathon than Paul Ryan. Ryan’s race time lie was an insult to all runners.

ZippyZ on November 14, 2012 at 11:53 PM

1. First.. Is Axelrod still paying you or do you drink large amounts of koolaid? Seriously, I’m just wondering because I’d totally shill for Marco Rubio in four years on his vapid campaign about nothing if the pay is good.

2. Geez.. The marathon slip-up is seriously the biggest thing that you have on Ryan. My mom is a lower information voter than me and got into the fight with a liberal Democrat whose hubby basically ran a vanity campaign for Congress in a gerrymandered R district. The ZOMG marathon was the first thing that came up. Seriously, if that’s the best you got on him.. Really get something bigger.

Also, I’m ridiculously confused about the fact that the House Budget Chairman is the source of all evil. Seriously, I keep hearing about the Party of No, but here’s a guy with a big idea who wants to solve a big problem. Also, I hear so much about all the Rs like Palin being dumb, but here’s a really smart guy who knows his stuff. So I’m confused about the visceral hate toward Ryan. Is it the fact that Medicare is such a sacred cow that it dare not be touched? Or is it the fact that he made Obama look like an idiot that one time? I’m just wondering why Paul Ryan gets the two minute hate with the lefty trolls.. m’kay.

First off, in this case Romney is probably right. This was a base turnout campaign, it wouldn’t have worked if public interest in this election was higher, but as is, it ended up being a contest of who could turn out their base better.

Well, in this front, offering goodies makes a difference. Oh sure, things like GOTV and securing the base early makes a difference too, but don’t think for a second that a lot of Obama voters got out to keep the gravy train running.

Second, I keep seeing people go on about Romney getting fewer votes than McCain, well it looks like this isn’t true.

It takes 2-3 weeks to count up every vote, and we’re probably going to see a million or two more votes counted before its all done. Well, as of today Romney was within a half million votes of McCain.

By the time all the votes are counted, Romney will have improved on McCain’s numbers somewhat, where as Obama will likely still be below his 2008 numbers.

Finally.

Romney’s now free to be honest with stuff like this since he’s not running anymore. After all, his words aren’t going to be nearly under as much scrutiny anymore. This’d be different if he planned to run again, but, once you’ve made it to the general election and lost that’s typically it.

Frankly, he’s at least partially right in this case, so I don’t rightly care if it’s PC. I also don’t care that Jindal disagreed, he’s obviously planning to run next time.

It was talked about a great deal before the election. obama would have to go scorched earth to win and that is exactly what he did. Let’s not also forget that Romney can somehow attack fellow Republicans like a rabid dog during the primaries but reigned himself in during the presidential. If he would have went after obama with the fervor that he attacked Gingrich, Cain and Santorum, Romney would have won no doubt.

And no Allah, you can’t beat the message of free stuff with a message of get yourself to work and get that stuff on your own. When 47% of the American public is receiving welfare in some fashion and you tell them the boogey man is coming to take it away they will vote/not vote to keep the cash flowing. No matter what side of the fence they claim to sit. If you want evidence, I give you last Tuesday.

obama pandered shamelessly to every liberal group out there. The examples don’t really need to be brought up again. There are more people out there who agree with obama and the left’s views than the right. Why is it so hard for people to grasp that? This nation has been slowly but surely brought along to accept socialism.

Dude, let the Romney hate go already. Seriously, that’d all I’ve heard out of you from the past year, and you STILL cannot let it go.

I’m tired of it, okay. The guy isn’t perfect, but he’s a good man who worked his butt off, and he would’ve been a WORLD better than that failure Obama! The least he deserves by now is a bare minimum of level of respect.

If you’re so angry, fine, be angry! But aim that anger at the people that’re actually dismantling the country, not the guy that at least TRIED to save it.

Romney hardly reigned himself in during the general. He attacked Obama ruthlessly at each and every single rally, and at the debates.

Thing is, he attacked him on the issues, and stayed focused on only the issues. I realize that a lot of people wanted the attacks to be more personal then that, but personal attacks simply do not work in a general election, period.

Thing is, he attacked him on the issues, and stayed focused on only the issues. I realize that a lot of people wanted the attacks to be more personal then that, but personal attacks simply do not work in a general election, period.

Romney shyed away from Benghazi and F&F. That could have torched obama. Those are not personal, that is utter failure as a president and should have been hammered home daily. Somehow fake scandals arose every time a new front runner would challenge Romney during the primaries but these two never seemed to be all that important during the general.

You really believe personal attacks don’t work?

So Joe Septic, Romney being a super rich felon and hating the 47% had no bearing on the election. By the time obama was done people believed Romney was a cold, heartless, heathen who wanted no more than to further enrich himself and his buddies while killing off the peasant class which was everyone who made less than a million a year. According to the obama phone lady, “Romney sucks”.

Jag, personal attacks don’t work if your strategy is to win Independents. That was Romney’s strategy and it worked, or would have if Democrats hadn’t come out in larger than expected numbers.

Seriously, would’ve been a completely different story if the turnout had been even a little different.

As for Benghazi/FF in the third debate. If you remember, at that time there was new information coming out about Benghazi nearly every hour. There was a lot of concern that Romney wouldn’t be able to make an effective attack on the issue, simply because it was so difficult to tell what the heck had actually happened at the time.

I suspect that was actually intentional, lots of deliberate leaks by the White House to muddy the issue and make it difficult to approach.

As for Fast and Furious, thats such a specific subject that its difficult to segway into it from unrelated questions, particularly when so many Americans are unfamiliar with that scandal.

Yes I know, more Americans SHOULD have been aware, but the media played interference on that for two years straight.

Different strategy, Romney was trying to win Independents, while Obama was running a base turnout strategy.

Frankly, even know what we know now, this was the correct decision. It’s obvious that right now, the Democratic base slightly outnumbers the Republican base. This wouldn’t have mattered, if Independents came out in the same force as in 2008, if this happened Romney would likely have swept all the battleground states instead.

With the turnout we had though, he would’ve needed to win Independents nationally by, 8-10%, he won by 5%

Again, didn’t work, but until Republicans and Democrats are back to about a tie in terms of turnout/ID, the only way to win is to get out both Republicans and Independents, and Independents are turned off by personal attacks.

Jindal can try and position himself for 2016 all he wants, but still the reality is, Obama pandered to special interest groups, and that’s how he got re-elected. It’s hard to beat handouts. He made himself look like Santa Claus, and a little better than half the electorate chose Santa Claus.

I will also say that elections come and go, and so do presidents. I don’t like what happened last week – in fact, I despise it – but the time will come when being conservative will come back into favor. The pendulum always swings. It will swing back to the right in time. When the takers figure out that free stuff is not free, believe me, they’re going to swing right.

This, incidentally, is why we need to focus on registering new voters, and reforming the Republican image over the next four years.

We assumed that, after 2010, our sides reputation was fixed. I don’t think this was entirely unfounded, but obviously there’s more work to be done. After all, winning the Independent vote by more than a fairly narrow margin in a national election is, difficult.

Obama pandered to special interest groups, and that’s how he got re-elected. It’s hard to beat handouts. He made himself look like Santa Claus, and a little better than half the electorate chose Santa Claus.

littlekittie on November 15, 2012 at 1:35 AM

I’m getting a little tired too of hearing that one over and over. Liberals have been “Santa Claus” for at least a friggin’ century now, and conservatives HAVE beaten them.

Dude, Democrats had a D+6 advantage, and don’t say that is only because Romney didn’t turn out Republicans, thats demonstrably false. Counting is still going on and Romney is now about tied with McCain on votes, despite a far lower Independent turnout than in 2008.

If we’re outnumbered by D+6, then the ONLY way to win is to also win independents by a large margin. There’s just no other way to overcome that sort of disparity.

Frankly, even know what we know now, this was the correct decision. It’s obvious that right now, the Democratic base slightly outnumbers the Republican base. This wouldn’t have mattered, if Independents came out in the same force as in 2008, if this happened Romney would likely have swept all the battleground states instead.

With the turnout we had though, he would’ve needed to win Independents nationally by, 8-10%, he won by 5%

Again, didn’t work, but until Republicans and Democrats are back to about a tie in terms of turnout/ID, the only way to win is to get out both Republicans and Independents, and Independents are turned off by personal attacks.

WolvenOne on November 15, 2012 at 1:30 AM

Romney didn’t turn out the conservative base.

The independents didn’t come out for Romney.

The Democrats didn’t come out for Romney.

So what the hell was the plan?

How do you arrive at the bizarre conclusion that what he did was the right decision when he didn’t capture the conservative base in enough numbers, didn’t capture enough independents to make up for that loss, and didn’t capture or depress the Democrats sufficiently to deny Obama the victory?

This sounds like Romney studied at the Charlie Sheen School Of Winning.

I’ve also been saying for that period of time that Romney was the status quo and would give us breathing room.

kim roy on November 14, 2012 at 11:28 PM

And please quit repeating that idiotic line. 1. The status quo is what’s driving us over the cliff and 2. You have as much breathing room right now as you would have had if Romney had won. What are you going to do with it? Wait to see who the next consensus sure-fire electable demi-god is and hop on the bandwagon?

Dude, Democrats had a D+6 advantage, and don’t say that is only because Romney didn’t turn out Republicans, thats demonstrably false.

WolvenOne on November 15, 2012 at 1:42 AM

Uh, it’s not demonstrably false. Dubya won in 2004 with a dead-even turnout. The Dems’ +6 advantage had everything to do with who was running at the top of the GOP ticket. You can tiptoe around that and try to find every rationalization you can grasp for, but it’s unavoidable. I and others have been telling you for a year what the likely turnout model would be.

Republican turnout was up, fairly dramatically. More Evangelicals voted for Romney than McCain. The drop in voting came almost entirely from less participation from Independent voters. This wasn’t entirely unexpected as 2008 was a high interest election, but many pollsters didn’t expect Independents to drop off quite THAT much.

Also, and I know you’re probably tired of hearing this, but Romney almost universally out performed every other Republican running. He won by larger margins than any other winning candidates, and lost by lower margins than any other candidate in states he lost.

That is not the sign of a flawed strategy, its a high of a close loss in a rough electoral landscape.

Yes, but how long has it been since millions of Americans have been moved onto programs like Food Stamps, in such a short period of time?

The only other period I can think of where this many people were reliant on the government was, during the Great Depression.

WolvenOne on November 15, 2012 at 1:46 AM

People have been relying on government handouts ever since there have been government handouts. So why didn’t all these militant moochers show up in 2010 and solidify the Dems’ control over Congress? Hmmmmmmmmm?

And please quit repeating that idiotic line. 1. The status quo is what’s driving us over the cliff and 2. You have as much breathing room right now as you would have had if Romney had won. What are you going to do with it? Wait to see who the next consensus sure-fire electable demi-god is and hop on the bandwagon?

ddrintn on November 15, 2012 at 1:49 AM

You think people are going to have the stomach and energy to deal with things when fighting off Obama’s BS both economically and with respect to his abysmal foreign policy?

It can be done, of course. It was a matter of doing it easier or harder. It’s just now down to harder.

Why does that bother you so? Were you hoping for it to be more difficult, more tiring, more devastating to more people?

A little history lesson, Republicans generally didn’t fare too well around then.

WolvenOne on November 15, 2012 at 1:46 AM

As to why–Robert Reilly points to the fatal tendency of candidate to view Washington as a management problem.:

This is a profoundly mistaken Republican notion that goes back at least to Herbert Hoover, a successful mining engineer, businessman and progressive politician who was an advocate of the “Efficiency Movement,” an attempt to manage government better. For decades the Republican Party nominated losing candidates—Alf Landon (1936), Wendell Willkie (1940), Thomas Dewey (1944 and 1948)—who presented a résumé boasting nonpolitical accomplishment in business and the professions. More recently, Republicans like Richard Nixon, George H.W. Bush and John McCain may have been more accomplished in the political realm but all struggled with what Bush 41 famously called the “vision thing.” Time and again, they’ve been defeated by Democrats proclaiming such things as the New Deal, the Fair Deal, the New Frontier, the Great Society, and “hope and change.”

The Great Communicator Ronald Reagan, who spoke mostly in moral terms, was the magnificent exception. He understood that Washington is not a management problem; it is a political problem. Everything the government does is necessarily political, because governments decide not only who gets what, but why. These choices define a candidate’s politics, but they must be conceived and expressed in terms of moral priorities.

Are you nuts!? Are you completely and utterly unaware of how much damage our party took during the economic collapse of 08!?

WolvenOne on November 15, 2012 at 1:56 AM

Uh-huh. And even with that, and even with Obama still without a record and still in his Chicago Jesus mode, McCain-Palin still garnered more votes than Romney. If I’m not mistaken, John Kerry in 2004 garnered more votes than Romney.

You’re still clinging to this stupid notion that no one, no sensible person anyway, could possibly NOT want to vote for Mitt. And then you’re cherry-picking whatever you can grasp to help you back up that idea.

Why does that bother you so? Were you hoping for it to be more difficult, more tiring, more devastating to more people?

kim roy on November 15, 2012 at 1:57 AM

LOL…at one point you say Romney’s status quo, and then you suggest somehow that he would be radically different. Sorry, but things wouldn’t be radically different even if Romney had won.

Republican turnout was up, fairly dramatically. More Evangelicals voted for Romney than McCain. The drop in voting came almost entirely from less participation from Independent voters.

WolvenOne on November 15, 2012 at 1:53 AM

All evidence to the contrary…

An average of 21.9 million viewers tuned into the nine broadcast and cable networks that were broadcasting convention proceedings Wednesday night between 10 p.m. and 11 p.m., according to Nielsen. That was 41% less than the 37.2 million who tuned in the same night four years ago, the research firm said.

An estimated 35.7 million people watched the third and final night of the 2012 Democratic National Convention.

2012 GOP Primary Turnout Lower Than 2008, 2000

According to Dr. McDonald, total turnout in Republican primaries as a share of the eligible voting population has declined since 2008. The raw number of voters has climbed a bit, by 1.3 percent — to 9.4 million in 2012 from 9.3 million. But the population of eligible voters has climbed even faster, by 2.8 percent over the past four years.

I don’t buy it.

Fewer turned out to watch the convention and fewer turned out to vote in the primaries but then they flooded to the polls to vote for Romney…unfortunately he got about as many as McCain?

If we’re outnumbered by D+6, then the ONLY way to win is to also win independents by a large margin. There’s just no other way to overcome that sort of disparity.

WolvenOne on November 15, 2012 at 1:42 AM

Dude. When you’re outnumbered D +6 when there’s real unemployment in the double digits, when costs of fuel and food are rising, when confidence and optimism are low, when the incumbent has shown gross incompetence complete with disasters in foreign policy, then I’d say the GOP had some problems at the top of the ticket.

McCain-Palin still garnered more votes than Romney. If I’m not mistaken, John Kerry in 2004 garnered more votes than Romney.

Wrong on both counts, moron. It takes about three weeks to count up all the votes in a national election. As of today Romney was half a million down from McCain’s total. Typically another couple million votes are added in the final two weeks of counting, mostly from rural precincts. Romney is likely to take a large chunk of those, and WILL be above McCain’s total when all the counting is said and done.

Little history lesson. In 2008, people initially thought that turnout was lower than in the 2004 election. That was proven horribly false once they were done counting. This time turnout probably will be done, but as I mentioned before, that will have been almost entirely from the massive drop in Independent turnout. Republican turnout was actually UP from 08, substantially.

The meme that Romney lost the election because he didn’t turn out the base, is a comforting little story to people who don’t wish to consider the idea that their side needs to change strategy. Unfortunately it’s just a bed time story, with no actual basis in reality.

Again, didn’t work, but until Republicans and Democrats are back to about a tie in terms of turnout/ID, the only way to win is to get out both Republicans and Independents, and Independents are turned off by personal attacks.

WolvenOne on November 15, 2012 at 1:30 AM

LOL. And right there’s the insanity, a hallmark of every GOP presidential loss since at least 1996. You’ve got to increase GOP turnout, but in order to do so you have to appeal to independents that you feel can only be appeased by nominating someone odious to the base, which is expected to turn out anyway.

The meme that Romney lost the election because he didn’t turn out the base, is a comforting little story to people who don’t wish to consider the idea that their side needs to change strategy. Unfortunately it’s just a bed time story, with no actual basis in reality.

WolvenOne on November 15, 2012 at 2:16 AM

John McCain didn’t turn out the base so how do you come to the conclusion that Romney did when he is struggling to match what McCain got four years ago?

Wrong on both counts, moron. It takes about three weeks to count up all the votes in a national election. As of today Romney was half a million down from McCain’s total. Typically another couple million votes are added in the final two weeks of counting, mostly from rural precincts. Romney is likely to take a large chunk of those, and WILL be above McCain’s total when all the counting is said and done.

LOL. And what if he isn’t?

The meme that Romney lost the election because he didn’t turn out the base, is a comforting little story to people who don’t wish to consider the idea that their side needs to change strategy. Unfortunately it’s just a bed time story, with no actual basis in reality.

WolvenOne on November 15, 2012 at 2:16 AM

But you won the indie vote. Change strategy? You got just the strategy you wanted, and it blew up in your face. Moron.

Republicans and Democrats made up a larger share of the voting public, but Independents were done several points from 08. I’m going off memory, but in 08 Independents made up about a third of the vote, low 30’s, this year they were in the mid 20’s.

Basically, the base on both sides came out, but Obama’s based outnumbered our base. I know its kind of shocking given how crumby things are, but the lions share of Obama’s base are minorities and African Americans, whom obviously don’t vote on economic issues.

If Caucasians made up the same portion of the electorate as they did in 1980, we’d be looking at a Reagan style land slide. Obama’s share of the Caucasian vote was only 38%.

And where exactly was Romney supposed to get those extra votes? Like I keep telling you, all indications are that the base turned out, but just wasn’t big enough to match up to the Democratic base.

So, where exactly were we supposed to get the extra votes? Romney already flipped more Democrats than Obama flipped Republicans, and would’ve been hard pressed to flip more. The only place the votes he needed could have come from was Independents. Trying to get them wasn’t a mistake, he just didn’t win them by a large enough margin to make a difference.

Obama successfully smeared Romney to depress turnout among soft R and I support. Akin and Mourdock damaged the brand. He was sufficiently vulnerable that unreliable black voters showed up. DREAM by fiat bolstered his support and turnout with Latinos. Media protected his ass more than any D president before him.

2. Geez.. The marathon slip-up is seriously the biggest thing that you have on Ryan.

It wasn’t a “slip-up” it was a “lie”. It called “character”. Lying about your race time is like lying about your GPA or SAT scores. He also told a very explicit lie with many specifics.

My mom is a lower information voter than me

There is a level below you? -11?

The ZOMG marathon was the first thing that came up. Seriously, if that’s the best you got on him.. Really get something bigger.

How about secret conferences call with religious leaders the day before an election to say the President threatens “Judeo-Christian values”? Paul Ryan will never live this despicable religious fear-mongering down ever.

Illinidiva on November 15, 2012 at 12:21 AM

Your crush on “Flash” Ryan is going nowhere. You should go after Newt instead. This great conservative is overdue for a wife change. You could be Moon Queen!!

It wasn’t a “slip-up” it was a “lie”. It called “character”. Lying about your race time is like lying about your GPA or SAT scores. He also told a very explicit lie with many specifics.
ZippyZ on November 15, 2012 at 2:34 AM

So you vote for the pathological liar instead – the guy who lies about terrorist attacks to whether you can keep your healthcare plan. Moron.

I just don’t think that the republicans need to change everything about itself to win. We only lost by less than 5 points, it’s not like it was a total blowout, the pendulum will swing back. Obama got a large turn out of blacks for him to show up, more than normal and expected by just about everyone. He played the race card to them and they ate it up out of their racist tendency to relate to him. That’s hardly a reason for republicans to self destruct.

I’m just going to say this. If the Republicans start thinking that the only way to win is to start giving out free stuff like Democrats, there really won’t be a difference between the two parties. If that does happen, I don’t know what I will do.

That’s the sound of a man who’s running in 2016 and who has a better ear than Mitt Romney for how to talk to middle-class voters.

But he was not talking to middle class voters…Romney was talking to a donor in what he thought was a private conversation. The only reason Jindal had to respond to that comment was that it was taped.

However, it was not just Romney’s statement that made people think this about Republicans, I have been hearing it all my life. And I am an old broad.

In fact Neil Boortz was on the radio the day before the election saying that the moochers would win it for Obama. This is the sort of thing people have heard a million times. No need to jump on Romney for it.

Jindal is just trying to convince people that he is not that sort of Republican.

I respect Romney so much for saying this. When I heard he as going to say ho he lost the election, I as certain it would be something about partisan bickering and ho the GOP needs to reach out to more people.

My problem, though. And I attribute this to the people around him as much as him. There are serious instances of voter fraud. Serious accusations. Poll watchers being thrown out onto the streets. Undercover videos of Democrats plotting fraud. Democrats voting 5 and 6 times. Even if he thinks it would go nowhere.. for the sake of the nation.. for the sake of the voting process this fraud needs to be taken seriously, it needs investigated. It is not sour grapes. It is a crime. This goes to the heart of our Republic!

If the Democrats have mastered voter fraud and the Republicans do absolutely nothing and are allowed to get away with it… then it is truly over folks. If fair elections are not worth fighting for then what the heck is?! It won’t matter a hill of beans who our candidate is and how good the platform is and ho well we get out our base or win the independents or ho high up in the polls we are if the Democrat control the vote count!

I do not think that is going to happen. Everyone keeps talking about how great Obama’s turn out model was, but they never include the fraud in that do they?

I do not even blame Romney for the turn out stuff…we are not Democrats, you can not drag bus loads of conservatives and libertarians to the polls..by our very nature we are self starters. Democrats however, will bus in and entire building of people.

The election was close, at last count less than 2%…I blame the people who did not bother to vote but who said they did not support Obama. That is who I blame. The lazy bums.

So this is what it has come to. Who can pander best? This is why the federal govt should not be involved in the affairs of individuals. Issues should be how best to manage defense. How to manage the currency to keep it strong. How to deal with international affairs. Repubs are now getting sucked into: What can we give 23 year old college graduate black females so they will vote for us? Nuts. Stupid. This whole thing needs to collapse and get rebuilt. The new constitution needs to be extremely clear in what the federal government CAN NOT DO.

wasn’t a “slip-up” it was a “lie”. It called “character”. Lying about your race time is like lying about your GPA or SAT scores. He also told a very explicit lie with many specifics.

M’kay… It was a dumb f’ing comment that he made on one talk radio program once. The left if just so flipped by the guy that they took the time to track down every little thing that Ryan says and obsess over it. I’m really confused as to why exactly the House Budget chairman gets your panties so up in a bunch. Seriously, is Medicare that sacred a cow or was it because Ryan made your worshipful dear leader look bad that one time at Blair House? I’m just going to get some understanding of the two minute hate, especially considering that you’re totally okay with Barry’s lies.

There is a level below you? -11?

Says the moronic sock puppet who clogged up every thread in the days leading up to the election posting Vegas odds. Again.. How much does Axelrod pay for trolls? I’m just wondering the going rate because I would totally shill for Rubio in his campaign about nothing if the pay is good. Also, I haven’t seen gumby for a while so I assumed that everyone’s contract ran out.

How about secret conferences call with religious leaders the day before an election to say the President threatens “Judeo-Christian values”? Paul Ryan will never live this despicable religious fear-mongering down ever.

M’kay.. The Catholic Church certainly thinks that Obama is threatening their religious freedom. They will likely have to shut down their social service programs like hospitals and their universities if forced to comply with a mandate they consider immoral. Barry is a secular progressive. He isn’t for religious freedom.

Your crush on “Flash” Ryan is going nowhere. You should go after Newt instead. This great conservative is overdue for a wife change. You could be Moon Queen!!

The Dems are allowed to define us and define our message. They broadcast their intent to play the class warfare “eat the rich” card and we ran Romney… to help them?

Romney should have been the candidate in 2008 when the economy was beginning to tank.

There is something very wrong when Republicans keep running the wrong candidates in the wrong years. Um. GOP insiders (who seem to keep their jobs no matter who is running)? Would you look into why you do this?

Much as I really used to like Bobby Jindal, his sorry a$$ decided (along with Mitch Daniels, Jim DeMint, and others) to stay out of the ring, leaving us with the manufactured Romney, the bland Pawlenty, the high-as-a-kite Perry, the not-ready-for-prime-time Herman Cain…etc. So f–k him. If he wants to run on a platform of cleaning up an even bigger mess in 2016 let him try.

We are a racially and economically divided nation. >50% have decided to vote for politicians who will bribe them with goodies paid for by <50%. Simple as that. It is the gifts. And the shallow stupidity of an electorate that decides these matters with the same seriousness with which they choose American Idol winners. Okay… maybe not that much seriousness.

There is no way to really turn this country around from what modern liberalism has wrought these past 100+years.
They have indoctrinated so many people to the point that even if they identify themselves as conservatives, there is still the gimmee attitude & what can government do for me.
You cannot turn that kind of mindset around very quickly.
There are so many people living off of the government that I do not think this is possible at all without the government actually becoming more tyrannical to the point that only a desperate people will have to rise up to stop it.
I have neighbors who on one hand curse the government & on the other hand embrace it to get freebies.
This nation has become Godless, soulless & is drowning in its iniquity.
With such selfishness & ignorance abounding, I cannot see any light at the end of this tunnel.
America had a choice this time around to try & divert a little.
Americans who voted on both sides made that choice.
And the apathetic & quitters helped cement the one side’s choice by staying at home & consigning us all to a horrible fate.
But then folks, remember, how long has it been since America was really the Constitutional Republic is was designed to be?
Not in my lifetime.
I’ll still vote. But honestly, I see no way of turning this around in any meaningful way.
I’m not going to give up trying. But the savages are at the gates & they’re waiting to take everything else we’ve got left.
I’m tempted to become a parasite myself in order to kill off the beast sooner.

obama won because he stole the election, pure and simple. Why isn’t Romney fighting for the people who voted for him, and demanding recounts in areas with 150% voter turnout, and where he didn’t receive a SINGLE vote? For God’s sakes, man, wake up. Is Allen West the only republican who has a pair?

And we go back to the ridiculous analysis of Allah now that the election is over. It’s a wonder why I even came back after 2008… When the election cycle is going on this sounds like a decent conservative site, but after we lose, it’s back to rinoism. I think I’ll follow some other people and just be done with this for awhile.

When Mitt’s 47% comments became public just about everyone here was ecstatic and claiming that this sealed the deal for Mitt. I was one of the few who expressed serious concern as to the negative impact his comments would have on Mitt’s campaign.

The Cult is now agitating for Palin to run in 2016. If Mitt had won, he would not have completed his second term until 2020. He would then have likely been followed by 8 years of President Ryan. Palin for President in 2028? I’m not buying that The Cult voted en masse for Mitt.

People “didn’t like Romney much” because Democrats effectively spent most of the Summer demonizing and attacking him. Face it- negativity worked. That was followed up with the dispensing of “gifts” and driving their core voters to the polls.

By the way, where were all our core voters? All those folks so enthusiastic to vote? Swing voters? “Independents” breaking for Romney? That “well-oiled” GOP GOTV program?

Turnout dropped by almost 8 million voters and Mr. Obama’s margin of victory was roughly 400,000. That’s approximately equal to a capacity crown at a Michigan home game- 3.5 times. Enough to dispense with an entire philosophy? Hardly and we’ve seen that movie in 2008- how did that work out?

Undoubtedly there are changes that need to be made. But the first, in the interest of fiscal security and economic reality, is to deny funding for those “gift” programs which are not affordable. Period. People need to see these were false promises and hurt jobs and our long-term competitiveness as a nation.

How about that over half-trillion Obamacare is stealing from Medicare? What about the debt situation? Jobs- will we finally see the revised unemployment numbers?

The answer is not, which Boehner and McConnell seem focused on. to kick this can down the road some more. That just shows folks that Washington continues to operate as normal and voting themselves more largesse works. It also makes the real fiscal crisis appear as an inventive meme of Republicans.

But like I say: If that’s our working theory, that there’s no way back to power without buying off constituencies, then what exactly is the path back?

There isn’t one, until many generations from now when we realize the damage we’ve done.

How do you win an election again under those circumstances?

Conservatives don’t, at least not for a long time. See above. (I care nothing for the letter after someone’s name; having an R label and being just as fiscally profligate as the Ds means you’re not a conservative.)

Or have people just given up?

The Republic is dying. No one can fight against such entrenched stupidity. Mr. K. and I have to make sure our girls are taken care of.

Much as I really used to like Bobby Jindal, his sorry a$$ decided (along with Mitch Daniels, Jim DeMint, and others) to stay out of the ring, leaving us with the manufactured Romney, the bland Pawlenty, the high-as-a-kite Perry, the not-ready-for-prime-time Herman Cain…etc. So f–k him. If he wants to run on a platform of cleaning up an even bigger mess in 2016 let him try.

Listen up moron. Romney’s life story is in point of fact inspirational for anyone who actually believes in capitalism and the benefits of leading an industrious, sober, conservative, family-oriented life.

Romney made a lot of money for his ‘consultants’ and friends. A la Bain, how you like it now? You sent money in to ‘build the stage’, and while he was paying them bonuses during the campaign…. You were losing all along

Romney made a lot of money for his ‘consultants’ and friends. A la Bain, how you like it now? You sent money in to ‘build the stage’, and while he was paying them bonuses during the campaign…. You were losing all along

You deserve it.

Can.I.be.in.the.middle on November 15, 2012 at 8:19 AM

He made a lot of money for people who trusted him and invested with him. But he was not good enough?

“Listen up moron. Romney’s life story is in point of fact inspirational for anyone who actually believes in capitalism and the benefits of leading an industrious, sober, conservative, family-oriented life.”

You’re preaching at the choir here. My point isn’t about Romney, for whom I voted enthusiastically. Perhaps “manufactured” isn’t the right word. The problem with Romney is that, on a superficial level, he is the perfect embodiment of every stereotype that exists about Republicans: super rich, out-of-touch, whiter-than-white, Wall St., etc. You can talk all you want about his inspiring life’s story, but you ultimately run smack into the second problem in this election, which is that electorate I mentioned that never bothered to look at the real Mitt Romney.

I was one of the few who expressed serious concern as to the negative impact his comments would have on Mitt’s campaign.

Basilsbest on November 15, 2012 at 8:11 AM

This is not why he lost.
He lost bcs of the reasons I described above.
You cannot compete with someone who is going to give you free stuff.
Enough people love socialism aka communism that they are going to vote for it every single time no matter what.
They’ll do it all the way to the gulag.
Note the Hispanic votes & who they have gone to every time?
Black vote?
It doesn’t matter what the GOP says or does, these people are enough in numbers that you’ll not be able to win as long as most of America remains apathetic & stays at home.
The voting habits, as in doing it in the first place, of the American people are pathetic.
How many people who are just eligible (not registered, but eligible) actually vote in the first place?
People have not been taking their freedom & liberty seriously at all.
And it is exactly why we have lost this Republic.
No amount of appealing to any group is going to change that.
The DREAM act isn’t going to change it.
Appealing to black voters isn’t going to change it.
Becoming more moderate isn’t going to change anything.
Both sides are ignoring the rules set up in the Constitution.
And no one in this country in enough numbers is holding them to those rules.

I appreciate Mitt being honest here about about how he really feels.
He is far from alone – but among the few who speaks (or gets caught speaking) openly.
Jindal’s reaction here illustrates how much this wasn’t just a decisive victory for Obama – it was also a crushing defeat for the right wing of the GOP.
‘Severe’ conservatism is dead…and moderate Repubs will be running the party now.

I appreciate Mitt being honest here about about how he really feels.
He is far from alone – but among the few who speaks (or gets caught speaking) openly.
Jindal’s reaction here illustrates how much this wasn’t just a decisive victory for Obama – it was also a crushing defeat for the right wing of the GOP.
‘Severe’ conservatism is dead…and moderate Repubs will be running the party now.

verbaluce on November 15, 2012 at 9:19 AM

Oh please. We both know that Romney is a moderate. At most you could call him center right. He ran on saving the entitlement state and economic issues. The most “severe” thing he talked about was cutting spending and unnecessary government programs which isn’t an extreme position when you’re in debt to the tune 16 trillion and accumulating 1+ trillion on an annual basis and CBO projects that the economy and the entitlement state will collapse in a little over a decade.

The left ran on a fear campaign that Romney wanted to kick down your front door and take away your birth control. In other words Obama’s campaign was centered on painting Romney as someone who was going to take away your government cut-outs and “benefits”.

We also both know that the Democrat party specializes in identity politics and government centered around clientism. FDR wasn’t shy about it and the tradition has not died.

What do you think?
Did you vote in the November 6th election?
2%No, I wanted to vote but I couldn’t make it to the polls
3%No, I didn’t vote and never planned to40%Yes, I voted for Obama
3%Yes, I voted for another candidate52%Yes I voted for Romney

Romney is basically right. Exit polls showed that an important factor was that people want a politician who “cares” about them or relates to them. You only want a politician to care about you if you look to big government as your sugar daddy.

What did Obama’s super team of voter targeting scientists enable him to do? Did they sell voters on Obama’s vision for a prospering America? No – they convinced voters that Romney was a bond villain, part of which involved convincing them Romney wanted to take away their birth control, make abortion illegal, and all the rest of it.

Jindal sounded like he lifted the words from a Zero stump speech. They did go after each group and over promised to them according to their needs. Pure Alinsky. They doled out checks to the Native Am members a month before the election. Salazar called it an early distribution of some of the Cobell decision dough. I don’t identify more closely with our dear leader. Who wants to see themselves in a narcissistic Chicago thug who used dope to get through college on the AA plan, and who has never held a real job making anything but more misery for everyone else. I wasn’t hiring a pastor in chief or a friend in chief. I wanted a businessman to get the economy going again, not someone who farts new regulations by the thousands.

Romney is right. he was right back in May. He could see the problem, so why didn’t he fight it? Well, he had a bunch of highly paid consultants to tell him not to. He lost our base because he didn’t counter act all of this baloney. I saw it in my own precinct that added a new piece of land to it. All of those people that Romney was talking about turned out big time. All of them thought that Obamacare was going to keep them going and yet they were the ones that will be told to take the pill and go home and die.

Romney did win 2-1 in our precinct anyway, but we weren’t enough to kill the blue counties over the mountains towards DC.

The left ran on a fear campaign that Romney wanted to kick down your front door and take away your birth control. In other words Obama’s campaign was centered on painting Romney as someone who was going to take away your government cut-outs and “benefits”.

gwelf on November 15, 2012 at 9:33 AM

Sure, keep telling yourself that.
I don’t disagree that Romney is a moderate – but he didn’t run as one. Tried it at the end a little… cautiously.
The next GOP primary field will be a lot different…moderates will be front and center and won’t be feeling a need to ‘reach out’ so much to the Rand-ian fiscal conservatives or the right social-cons.
The shackles are off.

Sure, keep telling yourself that.
I don’t disagree that Romney is a moderate – but he didn’t run as one. Tried it at the end a little… cautiously.
The next GOP primary field will be a lot different…moderates will be front and center and won’t be feeling a need to ‘reach out’ so much to the Rand-ian fiscal conservatives or the right social-cons.
The shackles are off.

verbaluce on November 15, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Romney didn’t run as a moderate? What were his “severe” conservative positions?

The GOP has been running moderates for a long time – McCain and Dole. I’m also certain that if Jindal were the GOP nominee in 4 years you’d be here denouncing him as some crazy right-wing loon. Liberals do this without fail every cycle.

Wow.. the great moderates in the R party, who exactly are these people? The only moderate that I know of is Chris Christie and that fat a$$ blowhard managed to sink his 2016 chances with the Sandy blowjob that he gave Obama. Jindal has the same position on abortion as Ryan, which is the Catholic Church’s teaching on abortion. Both are stylistically more moderate than Santorum or Huckabee and don’t nag people about it, but they still hold those beliefs. Also, Ryan’s budget ideas on Medicare originated with Jindal in the late 1990s. As for Rubio, if by moderate, you mean content free, then I guess he can be considered a moderate. I consider him a lightweight, but I guess people equate pretty speeches and empty slogans with moderate positions

Sure, keep telling yourself that.
I don’t disagree that Romney is a moderate – but he didn’t run as one. Tried it at the end a little… cautiously.
The next GOP primary field will be a lot different…moderates will be front and center and won’t be feeling a need to ‘reach out’ so much to the Rand-ian fiscal conservatives or the right social-cons.
The shackles are off.

verbaluce on November 15, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Ryan’s a right-winger too right? The guy who’s budget was so mild in steering us away form fiscal insanity wouldn’t even balance the budget in 10 years. Whereas Obama’s budget proposal didn’t even get one vote on the House or Senate. The truth is that anyone in the GOP that even in small ways opposed the progressive march forward of more spending and more government encroachment will be pilloried as a right-wing crazy.

Democrats don’t get re-elected by giving out gifts?
Take latinos – polling shows they largely favor taxing the “rich” and support entitlement and “safety-net” programs. Ponnuru has made the argument – which I agree with – that this is largely a matter of economic status and so is subject to change over time (like it has with other immigrant populations).